The case holding that it cannot be viewed as a tort committed during the performance of official duties of military personnel

The act of taking off against the person in distress cannot be seen as an act of performing official duties of a soldier, if it was caused by the accident that the perpetrator, who met with the accident, becomes a mutual vision and caused a threat to the situation, because it is not objectively conducted even if it is in charge or objectively conducted by him.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga13181) in the first instance trial

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 1,722,160 won with 5% interest per annum from July 29, 1968 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of the overall purport of pleading No. 5 (Report on Case No. 5), No. 7 (Field No. 8), No. 8 (Death), and No. 9 (Judgment), the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall view the above-mentioned performance at the severe headquarters around 11:00, around 17:00, and the non-party 1 shall look at the same 6 kilometers of the coast guard, and the non-party 2 shall look at the same 4 meters away from the point of view of the non-party 1's own frightetetet for the purpose of using the same 6 kilometers of the victim's frightetetetet for the purpose of using the same frightetite No. 8's frightetet for which the non-party 6's frightet and the non-party 6's frightet for which the non-party 6's frightet had his own frightet for the purpose of using the same frightet.

Thus, by examining whether the series of acts of the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 in the above decision were "the public official who performed his duties" as stipulated in Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, the act of the non-party 4 was not a public official in charge of the act when comprehensively considering the series of acts of the above decision and the act of the non-party 4 in general, and the non-party 4 did not go on the way to the non-party 4, and the non-party 4 did not go on the way to the non-party 4 in the opposite direction, and it cannot be said that the non-party 1's primary duty was a job-related act, and that it caused the accident that the non-party 1, who had been scambling, was threatened with the non-party 1. It cannot be said that the act of the judgment was an act of performing official duties of the military personnel.

If it is true whether the plaintiff's main claim against the plaintiff on the ground that it is a tort committed during the performance of official duties is no longer necessary to determine, it is dismissed. Since the original judgment is unfair with its purport different from that, it is so unfair that it is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 and Article 93 of the same Act with respect to the

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)